Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Further written evidence to be reported to the House.

LGPI 13 National Association of Local Councils

Clause 58

Community governance reviews

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Alistair Burt: Good morning, Mr. Chope. It is nice to see you in your place. We shall welcome your deliberations.
I wish to raise a couple of issues and cover a few points about the parishes that we did not have time to discuss at our previous sitting. Parishes are the real backbone of community involvement in the rural districts that make up so much of our country. Those of us who have spent most of our lives in urban areas and are relatively new to parishes certainly appreciate their work.
In previous sittings, I have touched on the growing bureaucracy that surrounds parish councils and on my appreciation of their concern about how their role is perceived and defined. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be allowed to interpret the clause reasonably generously so as to cover the community governance provisions of the next two or three clauses. I should like to know her intentions behind the power that will be given to principal councils to organise the community governance review.
What do the Government expect to be reviewed? Will parish councils that are not working effectively be under threat? There are two concerns about the community governance proposals in the Bill, and the first has to do with the provision to allow petitions from people who think that their area might need a parish council. Asking principal councils to consider whether the parishes in their area are working effectively could threaten those councils that think they are working straightforwardly and effectively but are doing so more quietly than the Government expect.
Let me expand on those two points. If new parishes are to be created, are the Government satisfied that the capacity is there to take on the role of parish councils in some new areas? In urban areas, the tradition and structure of involvement in local communities may not exist in the same way that it does in rural communities, where parish structure has been part of the landscape for a long time. For example, it is not strictly accurate to say that an estate with 3,000 people living on it is equivalent to a small village of 2,500 or 3,000 people.
People can live on an estate with a relaxed sense of community; in fact, their sense of community may apply to a council or geographical area that is larger than their immediate surroundings. A hamlet of fewer than 100 people can have a strong individual identity quite different from what might be found in a group of 100 people living in an urban area. If urban parishes are to be created as a result of the proposals and petitions, is the Under-Secretary confident that there is enough capacity, that training and resources will be available, and that mistakes will not be made?
The second worry is whether parishes are being overloaded and given too many things to do—a question that we touched on the other day, when we debated their being given the chance to promote the power of well-being. At the weekend, I attended a meeting attended by representatives from two thirds of my parish councils. We covered several matters, but two or three things in particular irked the people who were at the meeting.
 For example, people felt that their voices about what matters to them were not being listened to. We discussed planning and, although there is a statutory right of consultation, in too many cases people have become very wary of the whole concept of consultation. To them, the consultation often seems like an exercise being carried out by a principal council or authority: opinions are collected, but there is no real intention to act on the information gathered. When the expectation of local involvement is raised but not fulfilled, the danger is that people are not encouraged to stay involved or to continue making a contribution. The people to whom I spoke were concerned that there was more bureaucracy and more things that they had to do.
The implications of the Standards Board that was introduced some years ago are probably well known to the Under-Secretary. My own sense is that all the fuss that was raised among the parishes that I have contact with seems to have settled down, and that the board is no longer such an issue.
There was real concern, however, that if new powers were taken on to promote well-being, the councils would find it difficult to bring in new people to handle the extra duties. They already find it hard to get people involved. Councils are concerned that, if they do not opt to promote a power of well-being, they will be seen by the powers that govern them as not willing to be involved in their communities. That might expose them to charges that they are not doing their job, with the result that a community governance review organised by their principal council could appear threatening.
In other words, I want to know whether the Government desire parish councils to do certain things, fulfil certain standards and perform a certain amount of work. If a council does not do all that, will the Government feel that it is not doing its job and that it is time for it to go?
If so, I think that that would be a failure to understand the purpose of parish councils, what they do in their local communities and how they go about it. The concern is that the continual audit, and the inspection and review some years ago that revealed a certain number of silent parish councils, disturbed the sense that councils were masters of their own destiny and could look after things in their own way, provided that they fulfilled basic statutory requirements and were doing the job that their local parish constituents wanted them to do. Fulfilling those requirements, rather than responding to more rules and regulations from above, should be the most important thing that they do.
Those are the concerns I wanted to put on the record. I pay tribute to those who work in our parish council, and to its clerks. Clerks often cover a number of different parish councils: their ability to keep the councillors and chairs up to speed with changes in legislation and responsibilities is formidable, and we pay tribute to them and to all the parish councillors who work so hard.
I would like to know what is behind the Government’s thinking on the community governance reviews. Is there anything that parish councils should be aware of? If petitions are raised for new parish councils to be created in urban areas, what guarantee will be given that support and resources will be available to assist them?

Patrick Hall: The hon. Gentleman is reviewing a possible gradation of parish councils in the context of the debate. Within that spectrum, would he care to speculate or comment on the role of urban community councils, which do not have the power to raise a local rate, for example, but none the less exist? There are two such councils in Bedford. They are part of the range of local community representation that exists in the UK.

Alistair Burt: Parish councils are wary about raising more money. That issue came up the other day when we were discussing the power to promote well-being. Councils will not be given any new resources to do that, but will have to raise the money themselves. Raising money locally is never an easy job. Again, councils were concerned that they would be given new powers but no new resources, and that then people would say, “Why are you not doing anything?” No one wants to contribute and no one wants to cough up extra taxes.
I am not sure whether urban community councils want the power to raise money. I can understand why they would be hesitant. Any group, such as a residents association or neighbourhood association, that provides a collective view and an opportunity for people to engage beyond the confines of their own houses and take part in community life is good news.
 It is very important that urban community councils are established, and that they thrive. We must always ensure that there is something reasonable and meaningful for people to do. Again, I urge that community councils and other bodies that are statutory consultees should be able to see that that consultation really matters, that what they have to say about something is noticed, and that things change as a result. It is clear, however, that they are important and that they have a role.
Having said that, it has happened that community groups have been set up and have then handled money poorly, with the result that problems have arisen. Therefore, we need to be sure that there is leadership capacity, and that resources are available for training to improve it and to ensure that people are able to handle money safely. In that way, people will be able to handle their responsibilities effectively.
Those are the issues that I wish to tease out with the Under-Secretary, and I hope that she will be good enough to respond and give us a sense of the meaning of clause 58 and the associated clauses.

Robert Syms: I have just a couple of questions. Will the Under-Secretary confirm that where urban parishes are set up they will have a precepting power? If that is the case, will the current arrangements—with no capping on parish councils—continue?

Angela Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire for his comments on parish councils. We touched on some of the issues the other evening, and his comments go to the crux of community governance matters. I think that I shall be able to reassure him.
The clause deals with the means by which a principal council can initiate a community governance review. Either local electors in an area can petition for the principal council to conduct a review, or the council can decide to undertake a review at any time on its own initiative. That will enable local authorities to take decisions on the community governance arrangements in their area, following a review that they will be able to initiate.
A community governance review can apply to the whole of a local authority area, or to part of that area. Currently, local authorities conduct parish reviews, but the Secretary of State or the Electoral Commission take the decisions on implementation. Under the existing arrangements, petitions can be raised for the creation of parishes, but local authorities have to pass those petitions on to the Secretary of State. A crucial aspect of the Bill is that it devolves these decision-making powers to local authorities, so that the Secretary of State will no longer make the decision. Essentially, reviews will operate as they do already, but the final decision will be taken by local authorities rather than the Secretary of State. That is quite right, and it is truly devolutionary.
For the purposes of the provisions on community governance reviews, the local authorities that will be designated as principal councils will be district councils—both metropolitan and non-metropolitan, unitary county councils and, as a further step, London borough councils. The White Paper said that the Government were committed to giving communities in London the same rights to have a parish council as the rest of the country.
The question has been raised in our debate as to whether it will be more difficult to have parish councils in urban areas. There are already such parish councils, and there is no evidence that they are not as welcome or effective as others. The Government do not believe it right that London alone should be denied the opportunity to have parish councils, if areas of London so wish. The choice will remain with the area. 
 Is it more difficult to have parish councils in urban areas? The way to identify the community will be by way of the parish, the community or the neighbourhood, although the position might be different from that in rural areas. The general rule will be to decide matters on the basis of the smallest area that reflects community identity and community interests, but the area should also be viable as an administrative unit. If both those criteria are followed, the position will be the same as that for rural areas, though there might be a different shape from rural areas. For instance, the parish council area could be based on the boundaries of a housing estate rather than on those of the town in which the estate lies. It will be up to local people to make a case to the principal council that the area is an appropriate and viable one for a parish council. It will be a local decision.

Michael Fabricant: I am following the Under-Secretary’s remarks with interest. I believe that Lichfield city council is the largest parish council—

Robert Syms: No it is not.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend says that it is not. The council has always told me otherwise. Hon. Members will recall that it is the one with two maces.

Phil Woolas: It is probably the best.

Michael Fabricant: Indeed. I am grateful for that intervention from the Minister.
Let me ask a question. Smaller rural councils sometimes have problems finding councillors, and councillors are sometimes co-opted because they are unable to stand for election. Does the Under-Secretary not think that there could be a problem? If, for example, an estate in London were to have a parish council as she described, it could be taken over by just a few people, resulting in a general lack of interest. How can we get people involved? Her idea is good in principle, but in practice, how can it involve people and get them to stand for such councils?

Angela Smith: The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises cuts across every parish council in the country. It is not peculiar to London. For his information, the largest parish council in the country is Weston-super-Mare, and I regret that it is not Lichfield. I am sure that he will do his best to find one in Lichfield, but Weston-super-Mare has the largest parish council.
Involving people in parish councils is an issue that cuts across many areas. What we are discussing in the measures before us—for example, the power of well-being if councils achieve certain criteria—will encourage people to be more involved and play a role in their community. However, we must be aware that parish councils are an important part of community life. They are very important in rural areas and some urban areas, and London should be no different. I do not see the particular problem that the hon. Gentleman raises, but there are checks and balances in how the local authority will decide whether to give permission to go ahead with a parish council. Of course, we have had to take such issues into account. It is necessary to consider whether there is a community requirement and support for a parish council.

Bob Neill: On the legislation and guidance for local councils in dealing with petitions for councillors, does the Under-Secretary remember that that point was raised on Second Reading? I think that the Secretary of State, or perhaps it was another colleague, responded to questions on particular concerns—not unique to London but raised by London councils—about ensuring that councils can resist petitions in circumstances where there is a risk of damage to community cohesion through hijacking. When are we likely to see the guidance and the tightening-up of the provisions?

Angela Smith: We will get the guidance to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible, but I assure him that it will contain a commitment to community cohesion. That issue was raised in the evidence sessions. We are going a little wider than the clause, Mr. Chope, but I hope that you will indulge me, because this debate covers a group of clauses that hang together on a number of issues.
The Government have made a strong commitment on the importance of community cohesion and must be covered in the guidance. That will not apply just to the sort of extremist groups mentioned in evidence; it could also apply to a group that wants to remove itself from the community as a whole. That would be community segregation, and we want to see community cohesion.
I am instantly inspired to give the hon. Gentleman a better time scale. We should have a draft of the guidance by around April, but I can give him a commitment that community cohesion will be covered in it. He raised an important point.
Other important points had to do with how small parishes would cope with the work they have, and what we will do to direct what work parishes should do. That is difficult for the Government to direct, because parishes vary enormously in size, from Weston-super-Mare to a parish council of just a few people or to Lichfield—we are having a Bedford moment with Lichfield today. I do not think that it is appropriate for the Government to direct exactly what a parish council should do; that is a matter for the parish council. In terms of resources, the parish council, with the support of its community, will raise a precept for the duties that it thinks it should undertake. That is appropriate within the community.
The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire also raised the issue of bureaucracy. He was correct to raise it, and I take it on board. He will note that the White Paper and the Bill contain no new duties to increase bureaucracy. In fact, we have resisted involving parish councils in the local area agreements, although they will obviously have regard to parish council plans. Parish councils are not named in LAAs precisely because we do not want to be overly bureaucratic or to put overly onerous duties on them. That would be inappropriate. However, they will play an increasingly important role in the life of the community.

Philip Dunne: I am somewhat reassured by what the Under-Secretary says, but could she clarify something? It is clear that the measure is intended to devolve power to principal councils, and, as a localiser and not the centraliser she has accused me of being, I welcome that. However, I am concerned that some councils might seek to use those powers to impose a standard obligation upon areas where there are small parishes. Such small areas might just have parish meetings and not parish councils. The obligation might be that the area under the control of the council has a set-up of parish councils, and parish meetings are abolished for the administrative convenience of the district council. Will that be permitted under the arrangements?
I am also concerned that the community governance review will give to principal councils the authority to impose obligations other than those prescribed in these clauses for the sizing of parish councils and the grouping of areas. For example, will a principal council be allowed to impose an obligation for parish meetings to have a parish clerk in order to make contact more convenient for the principal council?

Angela Smith: I give an absolute reassurance to the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. It will not be for the principal council to place an obligation on the parish council.
On the point made about a review, there are very limited circumstances in which one would be initiated by the principal council. For example, it may be that residential properties have been built over existing parish boundaries and that a street or area straddles a parish boundary, so that people in the same residential street are represented in different parishes. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate for the principal council to initiate a review, but generally it would be for local members themselves to petition.
The hon. Member for Poole made a point about precepting. It will be open to parish councils to precept in their area as it is now. There are no plans to cap local precepts. That matter will be revisited if a problem is perceived, and if representations are made to the Government about, say, excessive rate precepting by parish councils. We may look at the matter again, but there are currently no plans to do so.
The issue of the Standards Board was raised, and of whether being subject to it would be over-onerous to parish councils. When the issue was first raised four years ago, there was an outcry. It was said that subjecting parish councils to the Standards Board was over-onerous, that it was like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and that it would deter people from becoming involved in parish councils. However, it has not had that impact; it has ensured that members of the public are aware of the propriety of local parish councillors. The fact that it has not been a problem for parish councils is testimony to the work of parish councillors themselves.

Andrew Stunell: I was trying to follow that point. I was under the impression that the Standards Board believed that it had been completely overloaded by frivolous complaints in relation to parish councils. The Under-Secretary seems to be contradicting that impression.

Angela Smith: I am not aware that there have been complaints from parish councils. I was making the point that suggestions were made four years ago that making parish councils subject to the Standards Board would impact on them, and that they would have greater difficulty finding candidates. There is no evidence that the Standards Board has put anybody off putting themselves forward as a candidate for a parish council.

Philip Dunne: Does the Under-Secretary recognise that although a number of parish councils may not themselves have complained to the Standards Board, the volume of its work arising from frivolous or vexatious complaints made by parish councillors has exploded? Does she also recognise that a large number of parish councillors who were councillors prior to the introduction of the Standards Board have resigned, and that that is the reason why there are not a large number of people putting themselves forward for election in several areas, including some areas in my constituency?

Angela Smith: I find the hon. Gentleman’s comments quite surprising. My understanding is that there has not been a flood of complaints from parish councils to the Standards Board. There may have been some complaints as is appropriate when there are issues to address. However, there has been no flood of complaints. There is a difficulty in finding enough candidates in some areas to stand for election to parish councils, but there is no evidence that that is a direct result of the involvement of the Standards Board. I find it difficult to believe that parish councillors have resigned because they were subject to the Standards Board. Councillors that I know—I am sure that other hon. Members are aware of similar examples—appreciate the role of the Standards Board. Its presence is not a deterrent to councillors; it is for their protection. The board judges issues of propriety, so I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Andrew Stunell: Perhaps this matter will be discussed when we get to the clauses dealing with the Standards Board, and I do not want to extend the point too far. However, will the Under-Secretary look carefully at the reports prepared by the Standards Board over the years about the proportion of complaints that it has received from parish councils, against the proportion from principal councils? Will she acknowledge that more complaints have gone to the Standards Board in relation to one parish council covering one third of one of the 21 wards in Stockport than in the whole borough?

Angela Smith: I would not want to give the impression that there have been no complaints about parish councillors to the Standards Board. The point that I am trying to make—perhaps very badly, which is why there are so many interventions—is that there is no evidence that the board has had an impact on the number of people putting themselves forward to be parish councillors. I should like to emphasise that. My point, in case I have confused the Committee somewhat or have not put things clearly enough, is that there is no evidence that the board as it applies to parish councils, as it was said when it was established four years ago, would impact on the number of people coming forward. It has not done so.
We have had a useful discussion about issues relating not just to the community governance petition, but to community governance as a whole. I move that the clause stands part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59 to 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63

Existing parishes under review

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Alistair Burt: It is welcome that powers to make decisions about new parishes, and decisions on their creation, have been devolved from the Secretary of State to principal authorities. Parish councils welcome that measure, and it has also been welcomed by the parish councils’ associations. However, there is one nagging doubt in the back of my mind.
 To a certain extent, the fact that such matters used to be handled outside the local authority by the Secretary of State provided some form of third-party scrutiny and review, so local battles were not fought and decided locally. I am concerned about whether there is any appeal process. If a personality dispute were preoccupying a local area where a local parish had been awkward or difficult and consistently at odds with a principal council, perhaps because it represented two different parts of a local authority area, whether urban or rural, the local council may decide, under the terms of clause 63, that that was an ideal opportunity to conduct a community governance review. The result of that review may be—surprise, surprise—that the difficult parish council would be scheduled for termination. What power of appeal is possible?
 Such matters used, of course, to go to the Secretary of State, thereby avoiding internecine strife, which is part of British public life. We have all had experience of that. The nods and smiles from Committee members tell me that I am mining a rich seam. We are all aware of this sort of thing. [Interruption.] Apart from Lichfield, where people handle such matters marvellously well. Certainly, nobody from Bedfordshire will take me up on this issue and complain.
When such matters arise, to a certain extent the Department and the Secretary of State can act as a stop-gap. What security is there in the Bill to prevent a most unfortunate decision from being taken if somebody tries to pursue a local agenda and a parish council is in the firing line? Is there any form of appeal? How can we ensure that a parish council will not be targeted unfairly? I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary could help me on that point.

Robert Syms: I notice that subsection (4)(b) provides for:
“if the parish has a council: recommendations as to whether or not the parish should continue to have a council.”
Is it possible under a parish review for a principal district or borough to abolish all the parish councils in its area?

Angela Smith: I thank the hon. Gentlemen for their comments. The clause allows local authorities to review existing parishes, and they could recommend the abolition or alteration of existing parishes following that review. There is some political debate on this. Currently Portsmouth is trying to abolish Southsea town council, which is controlled by the Conservatives, and Portsmouth town council, which is controlled by the Liberal Democrats. [ Interruption. ] I do not want to intrude on the private grief of Opposition Members. Perhaps they will want to talk about it later.
The Bill is about trust and devolution—it is about local authorities making decisions. If the Secretary of State does not have the powers to call in decisions or there is no appeal to the Secretary of State, it is a matter for local authorities to decide. I am a bit surprised by the hon. Gentlemen’s reluctance to accept the devolutionary thrust of the Bill. Local authorities will have to consult. The Government will set out a framework that will ensure that local people are consulted, that any representations are taken into account and that the outcome of the review must be open and transparent. There will be statutory guidance for local authorities carrying out reviews.
Local authorities will have to base their decisions on certain criteria. They will have to take into account the identities of local communities and community cohesion across the proposed area—the point raised by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. When considering whether to create or to abolish a parish council they will also have to take into account the body’s ability to provide effective and good local governance. The right of appeal in such matters would be the legal right to have a judicial review.

Alistair Burt: I am not complaining about the devolutionary power in the Bill. I accept that. As I said at the beginning of my remarks on the clause, the National Association of Local Councils has welcomed the measure and so do people in most parishes, because it offers more local control of their affairs. However, the sticking point is when a problem arises. All these things look great when everyone agrees with everyone else, and taking account of the needs of the locality and so on sounds great—until there are two opposing factions and the rubber hits the road. It is all very well to have appeal available through judicial review, but we all know the problems of judicial review. It is enormously expensive and tremendously uncertain. No parish council will quickly commit its resources to such a thing.
In a very difficult situation where a council has taken a political decision to remove a parish council, there would be no redress for a parish caught up in that sort of squeeze except through judicial review. That is what the Under-Secretary has said, but is she really content that that is safe and sure? Would it not now be better—for disputed cases, not those in which there is agreement—to have some other power of appeal that is less expensive and would safeguard the position of a parish council under threat?

Angela Smith: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but the decision would not be made unilaterally. Councils will go through a due process as laid out in statutory guidance and in legislation, and the decision will be open and transparent. Decisions taken by a local council or by Parliament itself do not always meet with absolute agreement—in the real world, that does not happen—but there is always the backstop of judicial review. We should not build in so many checks and balances that principal authorities cannot take decisions themselves.
The hon. Member for Poole asked if it would be possible to abolish all parish councils after the review. Technically it would be, if the review procedures had been gone through and the principal authority had regard to all relevant considerations, such as committee identity and cohesion. The principal authority could do that, but it would have to consider whether the action was reasonable. The Electoral Commission would also be involved.
I think that the system contains enough checks and balances and that we do not need further bureaucracy. We must trust principal authorities to behave reasonably, to consult local people and to be open and transparent in their decision making.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 64 and 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66

Grouping or de-grouping parishes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Robert Syms: Will the Under-Secretary explain what the grouping and de-grouping of parishes means? Will it actually involve mergers or just two or three parishes working with a common objective? I am not sure about the overall intent of the clause.

Angela Smith: The clause provides for a community governance review to recommend the grouping or de-grouping of parishes. Some parish communities in England wish to have their own identity and interests reflected by the creation of a parish, but are too small to have one of their own. In such cases, a community governance review could recommend that such parishes be grouped together and represented by a single parish council. A group of small parishes could therefore be represented by one parish council, if recommended by the review.
The clause provides a requirement for the review to consider the electoral arrangements of a grouped parish council or a parish council established after a parish is de-grouped. It also provides flexibility to allow small communities to reflect their identity and interests and ensures that, in performing their role, parish councils are effective and convenient. The clause therefore ensures that small parishes are not left out of the provisions in the Bill and can be represented by a parish council. One council covering a number of parishes is not a new phenomenon. It has been legislated for previously.

Robert Syms: I presume, therefore, that de-grouping would mean that a large parish could be sawn into pieces. Hypothetically, if we wanted to saw Lichfield into two, it would be possible under the clause.

Angela Smith: I suppose that if, for example, there had been further building in a parish and separate identities had emerged with the building of a new housing estate or community, that could be a reason to de-group. The aim is to reflect the identity of communities and to ensure adequate and viable governance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 67 and 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69

Recommendations to create parish councils

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Dunne: I would like to ask the Under-Secretary a question about subsection (3), which states that a parish must have at least 150 electors to create a council. How was that figure arrived at? The people in a number of sparsely populated rural areas, where fewer than 150 people live spread out over a large area, might feel a sense of community identity and want to constitute themselves as a council. What representations did she receive from the Local Government Association or other bodies to justify that figure?

Angela Smith: I am not aware of any representations against the figure. The current position is that each parish must have a parish meeting at which all local government electors in the parish meet at least once a year. The Bill will not change that. One hundred and fifty people could still have a parish and therefore a parish meeting, but that would not be a parish council with precepting powers. The Bill does not stop local people becoming organised or having a community identity. They just will not have a parish council, as such. Does that answer the hon. Gentleman’s question?
 Mr. Dunne indicated assent.

David Burrowes: On the number of people necessary for a recommendation to create a parish council to be made, why are the figures based on the number of local government electors, not population? The clauses that cover alternative arrangements for executives were based on population figures, not the number of electors.

Angela Smith: That is standard procedure for parish councils. It has not changed.

David Burrowes: I appreciate that it may be standard. I am asking why. Some groups, for example, residents of a housing estate, might not be represented as electors, but they are part of the population. They might want to be part of a community so that may be a rationale, even though they are not electors, for them to have a say and to ensure that their area is represented by a parish council.

Angela Smith: We are discussing community councils and the services that are received by the community as a whole. The traditional reason for the arrangement goes back many years, probably to before the hon. Gentleman and I became Members of Parliament. However, when establishing a parish council or a new governance process, the electors will make such decisions. That has been the established tradition for many years.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses70 to 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77

Interpretation

Bob Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in clause 77, page 52, line 6, at end insert ‘or’.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 64, in clause 77, page 52, line 8, leave out from ‘districts’ to end of line 9.

Bob Neill: I am delighted to see you back in the Chair, Mr. Chope. The purpose of the amendments is to deal with parishes in London. I appreciate that the Under-Secretary may use them as an opportunity to attack me for having a centralising rather than a localising tendency, but that does not bear much analysis.
Logically and instinctively, as a localiser and a devolutionist, my temptation would be to say that, if local authorities want a parish council, we should provide a permissive power to let them do so. However, that must be tempered to some degree, as the Government’s White Paper recognises. What is appropriate in some parts of the country does not necessarily work everywhere else. History and traditions of local government vary.
In general, the situation and the evidence suggest that parishes are most common, even in the home counties, in the more rural areas. There are exceptions—Milton Keynes is an urban area that is fully parished—but that is not the rule. After our evidence sitting, I took up the challenge and went to Bromley public library to see if there were parishes in the London borough of Bromley prior to the local government reorganisation. I found that there had not been for many years. The only part where parishes existed was Biggin Hill, and that was purely anomalous because of it having been transferred to Kent many years ago.
 There is no real tradition in London of parish government. We have to think, therefore, where the demand is coming from. London had parishes before the creation of the old metropolitan borough councils at the end of the 19th century, but they were absorbed into the London boroughs, so there is no history in London—unlike in much of the rest of the country—of two-tier government at neighbourhood service level. There is a tradition of city-wide government—the London county council or the Greater London council—but not at the level of delivery of neighbourhood services. If we are to go down the route of the Government radically changing London’s governance structure, that ought to be in response to a clear and pressing demand and proven need.
What strikes me about the debate so far and the literature that has been produced is that there is no evidence about where that pressing demand or need comes from. London Councils, the representative body of the London boroughs, has at no time sought to have the power to create parish councils in London. None of the London boroughs has petitioned or sought to set up parish councils. The Commission on London Governance, of which I was the deputy chairman, looked at that in considerable detail and took evidence from interested bodies over a period of some months. We had people come down from Milton Keynes and elsewhere during our in-depth review.

Alistair Burt: Does my hon. Friend recall the other day when we spoke about a similar mysterious black hole, a Bermuda triangle, where the demand for directly elected executives had arisen? We struggled to find where that came from, and the present provision appears to be coming from the same source. It is an idea, but nothing with a really solid substantial base.

Bob Neill: That is correct. When we look at the results of councils’ performance to date, it is interesting that the idea of the city manager, which the Government accept was wrong, ended up putting Stoke at the bottom of the pile. There is always the danger that an idea that is lobbed up without much evidence to support it will not work in practice. I think that is exactly the same point. When the Commission on London Governance conducted its investigation, we wanted to see where the evidence was. We wanted to see that there was a real demand and that there would be some real added value in the London context.
It is because I am a devolutionist that I specifically want to emphasise the London context. A system of permitting parishes may be appropriate in other urban areas such as Milton Keynes or even Leigh-on-Sea, with which the Minister and I are not unacquainted, but that does not mean that it is appropriate or will give added value in London. That is the key test. The whole point of London having a devolved government structure was to accept that because of its diversity, complexity and size, it does not and need not fit in all respects the same local government template as the rest of the country. I do not understand why the Government are proposing something for which there is no significant demand.
The commission looked at the matter and we took evidence from a lot of people, including from authorities outside London that do have parishes. At the end of the day, a number of members of the commission thought that there might be merit in the idea and did not want to rule it out—I say that in fairness—but the majority of the commission, including, unanimously, the members both of my party and the Government’s, were of the view that there was no value in having the power to create parish councils in London.
I hope that the Ministers will reflect on the views of people such as Hugh Maylan who chaired the commission. Hugh Maylan was a very successful Labour leader in Croydon. Croydon gets very high marks for its community engagement from both Conservative and Labour administrations. People such as Hugh Maylan, Robin Wales and others gave evidence to us showing that there was not the demand for that form of community engagement. There are other ways in which community involvement works in London that we think are more effective.

David Burrowes: I concur with many of my hon. Friend’s remarks and his view that we need to see a demand for parish councils in London. Representing a London constituency, as we both do, would my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that that evidence has not necessarily tested the demand from those who feel detached from their local council, particularly those who live on the edge of a borough or in areas of great diversity, which sometimes have their own characteristics that are not necessarily reflected by existing governance arrangements, or by the area forums, which do not provide real power and control in their community?

Bob Neill: I have a lot of sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point, because when I was a local councillor, I represented a ward on the edge of the London borough of Havering, which itself is on the edge of London. If people went past me, they got into Essex; it was as simple as that. I had the advantage, as the Under-Secretary knows, of being that remarkable thing: an Essex boy who migrated to Kent. None the less, even in my constituency, the same issue applies. When the commission considered the London context, we concluded that there are better ways to proceed. The point that my hon. Friend raises is serious, but the creation of parishes is not likely to be the most effective way to deal with the matter.

Tom Levitt: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there is a wide variety of models for community engagement that could be used in particular circumstances. Surely the parish is one of those models, but the reason why the Bill singles out parishes is that establishing a parish entails a legislative process, whereas other forms of community engagement do not. That is the only reason why the Bill proposes the option of parishes. All of us agreed a few days ago that different options should be presented to councils in different contexts. Surely the Bill is right to include the option of parishes.

Bob Neill: The hon. Gentleman’s point is superficially very attractive, but the reality is that the Government themselves have conceded that not all options should be put into the Bill. If the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s position were followed, we should have included an option to allow local authorities to have modified committee systems if they wish. However, the Government have chosen for reasons of policy to exclude that option from the Bill.
The same principle could legitimately apply to the present proposal. Unless there is a clear reason for introducing parishes in London, why should we run the risk of the extra costs of reorganisation and the likelihood of a parish precept on top of the Mayor’s precept—a not insignificant matter in London—as well as the borough councils’ costs? If there were a real demand, or if the Government had been consistently permissive in the framing of their own Bill, I would have much more sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Alison Seabeck: On the question whether there is a demand, I do not think that we have probed enough. I can understand why local authorities in London might not be hopping up and down saying, “Let’s have lots of parishes all over the place,” but I agree with the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate that there are communities out there that will see value in the concept, whether in Hampstead village or somewhere on the outskirts of Havering, which is an area that I know well. I was born there, and my father was the leader of the council many years ago. I am sure that some communities would be very keen to consider the option. It might not tie in with what the local council wants, but I genuinely believe that the Government should give people the option.

Bob Neill: Again, that is superficially attractive, and I have a lot of sympathy with it, but the fact is that when the research was done, no such evidence was produced. I am rather troubled by the hon. Lady’s suggestion that the views of the local authorities, which have a democratic mandate, should be dismissed. The whole point of the work that we did with the Commission on London Governance was to ensure that that organisation, unlike the Herbert commission or even the Marshall report, consisted not of the great and the good but of practitioners in local government in the capital who have to face election and take the flak from their own constituents and electorates.

Andrew Stunell: That part of the hon. Gentleman’s argument suggests that it would not be legitimate for a small local community to petition for and seek the creation of a parish—that the request would have to come from the principal council level. Is that his view?

Bob Neill: No, I think that that takes it too far. My point—it is a question of consistency—is that, given that we have accepted that London has a separate structure from the rest of the country and a separate history and traditions, if we decide to create a permissive power in London, we should have regard to London’s structure and traditions and to whether there is a real demand. Nobody has yet answered my question, save in hypothetical terms. Where does the demand come from?

It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.